Direct blood transfusion this another often use example. When two people are essentially hooked by tube and is feeding blood directly into another person. (Think Mad Max Fury Road)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Leftist Hypocrisy on Abortion and Death Penalty
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Yeah... though this doesn't really happen any more because of infection control.
More accurately, pro-choice is in favor of maintaining the 'legal right' to abortion. Anti-abortion proponents are against the 'legal right' and wish to re-criminalize once again. If the issue comes before the Court again will a consensus be reached as to when life/personhood begins?
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
(Section 1X Roe vs Wade)
The Court noted that the official Catholic position that life begins at the moment of conception has been in the church's official teaching only since the 19th century, that this is by no means the unanimous position of other religious denominations or medical authorities. Lacking any real unanimity the Court granted women the discretionary freedom to exercise their own consciences with minimal government interference.
There's more than that hinges on the decision. Criminalization leads to poverty, disease, crime and high taxes.
Not all effects are direct and obvious.
Then please address my earlier question: who in your view has the right to tell women that regardless of their wishes they may not have an abortion in the earlier stage of pregancy? And what is the basis of that right?
Then why do you not respond with reasoned replies to those who have given you reasons to think otherwise here?
Or, you'd be asserting that you, or the state, knew better about the appropriateness of terminating the pregnancy than the mother did. Do you make that assertion? If so, on what basis?
What, the fact that the fetus at the time of abortion is not yet a person is irrelevant, you say?
Only if we allow your dismissal of 'personhood'.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Of course there are exceptions. I'm just explaining that not everyone considers it "murdering babies", thus why opposing the death penalty wouldn't be hypocritical.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Another interesting bit about pro-lifers is that many of them also oppose sex education and contraceptives; two things that obviously reduce unwanted pregnancies. They want to force women to bring these children into the world, yet oppose the social programs they might depend on to care for and raise them.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I don't think there is any inconsistency at all. There only seems to be when you put words into the mouths of so called "leftists".
I am not a fan of abortion, but I think it is absolutely necessary for it to be an available option for women. But, legally speaking, abortion comes down to bodily autonomy. No one can be forced to give up the use of their body against their will, no matter who depends on that use. The 13th Amendment guarantees this. I would argue that we have the right to live, although that isn't a constitutional right, but abortion isn't about that. I don't have the right to live if my life depends on infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of others. That is why we are not obligated to save people's lives when we have the chance. Morally, maybe, but certainly not legally.
I am not a fan of the death penalty either; not because it is immoral, but because it is not cost effective. The required appeals process for those on death row is so long and cost intensive that leaving them in prison is often cheaper than eventually putting them to death. And, that appeals process is necessary, as there have been many who have been wrongly convicted. So, it seems to be better safe than sorry.
All in all, you are assuming that these positions are based on morality when, in fact, they are based in logic and legality.
Would that be the question the court has to rule on?
After birth, a child is unquestionably a person, and the parents are no less responsible for the child's existence than they were when the child was a fetus, but western courts generally don't compel parents to provide their bodies for their child's use then.
"Personhood" arguments seem to only matter when it's only the woman's rights on the line. When the argument might imply that a man has to furnish a child with a part of his body and live with lifelong health implications because of it, suddenly the personhood of the child doesn't matter.
@Hubert Farnsworth - you wanted to talk about hypocrisy; well, what do you think of that hypocrisy?
Good question. I think for the fetus to be considered a person pertains to whether or not the fetus enjoys protection of persons under the Constitution. If this Court decides that life, personhood begins with conception then the woman has no right to abortion.
If the Court decides that personhood begins with conception, then the rights of the fetus would be balanced against the rights of the pregnant person as they are in any other parent-child situation.
... and in any other parent-child situation, the parent isn't compelled to let the child use their bodies.
So if the fetus was given the rights of a mere person, then a pregnant person would be just as free to refuse their uterus - and everything else - to the fetus as a father would be to refuse a kidney or bone marrow to their child.
To actually get to a point where you could justify an abortion ban, you would need to establish that either:
- a fetus is entitled to special rights BEYOND basic human rights, or
- a pregnant person is NOT entitled to at least part of what we consider basic human rights.
So the answer to my rhetorical question is "no." No case about the legality of abortion will come down to the question of whether a fetus is a person.
I usually vote Democratic and I support legal abortion and the death penalty. Euthanisia, as well. Call me pro-death. Hahaha
But the first of human rights is right to life.
I think Roe v Wade considered the woman had a right to privacy between her and her doctor without any government interference. R v W was never intended to be abortion on demand. I do not believe abortion should be criminalized, but rare and safe.
No, it isn't. In western countries, the right to life doesn't supersede bodily security. This is why I don't have the right to take your kidney, bone marrow, blood, or even a hair off your head... not even if I'll surely die without it.
Fun fact: many of the people in this thread (me included) aren't Americans. Abortion rights aren't a matter of American law at all where I live.